You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor

Posted on Thu, May 12, 2011 : 5:45 p.m.

Michigan business tax overhaul on its way to Gov. Rick Snyder's desk for signature

By Ryan J. Stanton

(This story has been updated to reflect that the House has concurred with the plan, which now awaits Gov. Rick Snyder's signature.)

The Michigan Senate this afternoon approved Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed overhaul of the state's business and income tax codes — but just barely.

The vote on House Bill 4361 fell 19-19, with some Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the legislation, but Lt. Gov. Brian Calley broke the tie to pass it.

The Senate is made up of 26 Republicans and 12 Democrats.

House Republicans quickly concurred with the Senate's changes in a 56-52 vote today, sending the legislation to Snyder for his signature.

Rick Snyder

Republicans see the the legislation — which replaces the Michigan Business Tax with a 6 percent corporate income tax on C-corporations only — as being key to reinventing Michigan and making the state more competitive for attracting businesses.

But Democrats say it unfairly shifts the state's tax burden to poor and elderly residents while giving corporations at least a $1.7 billion tax break.

Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, issued a statement shortly after voting in opposition of the legislation, which she said funds a corporate tax break "on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens, without the promise of creating a single job."

"Make no mistake, this plan may fix our budget deficit for today, but it does nothing to preserve our way of life for tomorrow," Warren said.

Warren said the version of the bill passed today actually added back in some credits that give additional money back to businesses. She said the administration hasn't shown exact numbers, but she estimates it could be closer to a $2 billion tax break now.

The Senate-approved plan institutes a public pension tax, reduces the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers and eliminates charitable giving credits.

Snyder credited the Legislature for passing what he considers landmark reforms, saying taking bold action is necessary to put Michigan on the path to prosperity again. He also offered special thanks to Calley, calling him a "key architect of this proposal."

Michigan GOP Chairman Bobby Schostak issued a statement saying the state took an enormous step toward rebuilding its job base and securing prosperity for its workers.

“We will rebuild Michigan and turn this state into a destination for prosperity once again," Schostak said, adding the MBT has stifled job growth by attacking business revenue that could be reinvested in jobs, equipment and salaries.

The Michigan League for Human Services said it was glad that the plan passed today at least preserves a portion of the state EITC — giving low-income filers a 6 percent match, rather than the 20 percent match as the credit stands now.

Gilda Jacobs, president and CEO of the league, said the 6 percent state credit is a more efficient and effective way for Michigan to help its low-income working families than an earlier proposal that included a $25 per child tax credit.

“We appreciate the willingness of the administration and Senate leaders to work with us to find a way that best targets help to low-income working families," Jacobs said. “While we would prefer to have the state EITC continued at 20 percent of the federal EITC, we believe this an acceptable compromise given the budget balancing plans of Gov. Snyder and the Legislature."

State Rep. David Rutledge, D-Superior Township, said he was glad the Republican legislative leadership at least kept a scaled-back EITC and preserved brownfield credits that help make urban investment possible where it might not occur otherwise.

"But I was deeply disappointed that most of the other provisions of the plan remain, such as the pension tax, the elimination of many credit programs that work, and deep cuts to state support for K-12 and higher education, all paying for a $1.8 billion business tax cut," he said. "I fear that this tax plan will have devastating impacts on all Michigan residents, and for that reason I voted against the plan at every opportunity."

Comments

Truffledog

Wed, May 18, 2011 : 2:01 a.m.

Not enough attention placed on the abrupt end to the 50% tax credits for contributions to homeless shelters/food banks, and community foundations. This was the only meaningful tax break for charitable giving available to people who do not itemize. SHelters and food banks are in for increased needs and shrinking federal support, and this kicks fundraising in the gut. The Republican legislative majority is waging an unholy war against all of civil society.

Michigoose

Tue, May 17, 2011 : 3:38 a.m.

This is ridiculous. As if taxing the poor to give to the rich ever resulted in improved standards of living for everyone. Never in history have such policies been anything but harmful, and yet free-market fanatics continue with the same old lies. Why? Because it will make them richer.
Rick's plan is good for his CEO friends, good for the Koch brothers, good for people in the highest income bracket who are doing just fine. His plan is bad for anyone who:
relies on the public school system to educate her children, and cannot afford private schools
relies on the police force and fire department for safety, and cannot afford private security
relies on community health centers or Medicaid, and cannot afford private health insurance
has a special-needs child
is retired
is disabled
works for a living
is poor
uses public parks
drives on public roads
So enjoy the party, those of you who are happy about this budget! While you celebrate with champagne and caviar, perhaps with pricey escorts and cocaine, the rest of us are locked out where you can't see our suffering. You don't have to send your kids to public school in Detroit or call the soon-to-be-defunct Benton Harbor Fire Department. You have doctors whose job it is to make you and your spouses look younger, and you don't have to wait in line at the Medicaid clinic amid sick people and screaming children. You have hired people to write comments on annarbor.com on your behalf, so you don't have to read our complaints. Our public parks will soon be your private golf courses.
But give me a break. Can't you just admit your greed? Why keep up the pretense that this pain is for our own good, when it is so obviously for yours? You have enough votes right now- just be honest like your feudal predecessors: the common people exist to make you rich.

Dave

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.

Someone explain to me how corporate/business tax breaks = giving money to the wealthy?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but company coffers are not the personal savings of rich business owners; money saved is reinvested into growing the business. I know personally that with my company in Ann Arbor here, larger budgets from savings on taxes would directly equate to hiring in more people, a.k.a. job creation.
I empathize/sympathize with any added tax burden waged on the working class, but after listening to a 1HR Q&amp;A session with the Governor on WEMU this morning, he made it sound like the savings from the tax break isn't being stripped as it is being changed into a personal property tax break instead (which still is targeted at the same working class who would lose the tax credit). So I'm not sure whether this is actually a greater expense for the poor, or a mis-perception.

Mike K

Sun, May 15, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.

No seriously John, reward a small bunch of business owners? That's cynical. It allows the business to grow and prosper. It's really not that hard to understand.
This will be controvrsial, but you continue to &quot;bet the house&quot; on individuals who primarily live on necessities. How will buying milk, bread, eggs, cigarettes and gas create demand? That demand is already there. I don't mean this in a mean spirited way.

John Q

Sat, May 14, 2011 : 2:53 a.m.

Is Dave's employee going to offset the job losses that will come from seniors not spending money? Or the low-income workers who spend less with the reduction in the EITC? Snyder's change rewards a small group of business owners at the expense of almost every taxpayer. Now who's picking winners and losers?

Mike K

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:50 p.m.

But John, when Dave does higher a new employee, that employee then becomes a consumer increasing demand, and when this happens on an aggregate basis, commerce flourishes. Then the tax generating machine kicks into high gear. We all win with this system.
That's a much fairer system than identifying groups of individuals to specifically tax.

John Q

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.

&quot;What a rediculous response. Less taxes means more money the company has to reinvest in the business. This allows for expansion, thus creating more jobs.&quot;
What's &quot;rediculous&quot; is the assumption that more money for business equals more jobs. Businesses only expand when there's a market demand to serve. In Dave's case, he's explained that there's already a demand for service. But in many cases, there's not only not going to be a demand for more services but likely a decline as the income of seniors and low-income workers get sucked away to pay for this business tax break.

Dave

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:06 p.m.

John Q: My company is a small [but fast growing] IT company; we've been needing to hire in more staff to work onto our products, but budgeting has been a limiting factor. The funds saved from reduced taxes would allow us to re-apply them to our hiring budget, thus 'create new jobs.'
Mike K: You might be right about generating more tax revenue from a business expanding (w/o hiring), but eventually you hit critical mass, and the business ceases to grow (and generate more tax revenue) if they can't hire in more people to maintain/grow their products or services.

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:55 p.m.

Johnny Q,
Dave asked a legitimate question. Why not answer it and then ask your question. Don't play games by answering a question with a question.

Mike K

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.

Keep in mind Grye, that even if the company expands without hiring, it still generates additional sales tax and taxable revenue. Go back to &quot;big oil&quot; for a minute. All the woop de doo was about the deductions corporations are allowed to take by law (&quot;big oil subidies&quot;). Big bad oil, in the case of XOM, paid $8 Billion in income tax on those record profits last quarter. Let's not talk about that...............................

grye

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.

What a rediculous response. Less taxes means more money the company has to reinvest in the business. This allows for expansion, thus creating more jobs. Yes, some companies may not desire to grow, but those are few and far between. Take a business class and understand how it works.

John Q

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:43 p.m.

Dave - Explain why your business is going to hire people because taxes have been cut?

Booradley

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.

The reasons we are in this mess is because unions were unwilling to bend, our Legislators were unwilling to make Michigan a Right-to-Work states, and our former governor and politicians were greedy. Our greed has finally caught up with us and people are crying the blues because they are stuck at facing reality that its time to pay the bills.

Carfan

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.

Everybody is for helping local businesses and the idea of eliminated the Michigan Business Tax sounded great. Did anyone look into the details of this? Is the MBT really killing jobs? How about some examples?
The fact is that the current MBT is apportioned, that is it only taxes business on the portion of its sales done in Michigan and then only on the profits on those sales and then only after a business exceeds $350,000 of sales. For example, a Michigan business that does 750K of sales in the state is allowed to deduct 350K of that right off the bat. If profits on the remaining 400K amount to say, 7% or $28,000 then the taxes paid are somewhere near the astonishing, job killing figure of $1250! Wow! That HUGE amount surely will drive companies out of Michigan, right? $1250 less taxes on $750,000 of sales will surely mean those same companies will hire new employees to fill the huge demand created by all that extra income, right?
In its place, pensioners will now be taxed and the earned income credit (available only to lower income families) is being eliminated. Great plan….

grye

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.

Why not tax the pensioners? My 401K will be taxed. Fair is fair.

grye

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.

There are many on the site that believe in taxing businesses more. They don't have any faith in trickle down. So please explain to us how trickle up is going to provide businesses the income to expand and create jobs.

grye

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.

I'm still waiting for lefty response.

Mike K

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.

Grye - what we have here is a lack of systematic thinking on the left. Their system is to look around, see who has money, then ask them to fork it over. That's fair. You should know that.
Another fallacy I've heard lately is that the jobs come to education. Taking my own case study, it's the exact opposite.
The challenge that needs to be issued is to have the anti corporation, pro tax crowd visit industrial parks in the area. Just yesterday I drove through the Avis park just south of the A2 airport. Sign after sign, &quot;for sale&quot;, &quot;for lease&quot;, &quot;space available&quot;. The pro tax crowd doesn't realize that these locations were tax generators for local, state and federal government. Empty space produces nothing for no one.
Rather than doing something systematic to fill that space; they continue on their witch hunt to find who has the money they can take. Yesterday it was &quot;big oil&quot;. I was challenged on that, and had a look. 85% of these so called subsidies are actually write offs ANY corporation can claim. They are deductions. It's a big show.

Top Cat

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

I've already had one child leave Michigan because she could not find work here. Now at least there is some hope that my son won't have to leave Michigan as well to find a job. Thanks to Governor Snyder for leaving the failed past behind.

braggslaw

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.

While this new tax structure is not a guarantee of prosperity it is a step in the right direction.
The present tax structure created a horrible environment for small businesses and drove them to other states.
The real issue is jobs versus entitlements.
This is a win for the Makers and a loss for the Takers.

John Q

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:40 p.m.

Nice to see that you're hedging already. Sounds just like the Governor. Don't give any metric to measure &quot;success&quot; so you can claim credit for any kind of positive news and run away from any negative.
Entitlement is the expectation of the business community that their share of taxes should be paid for by individual taxpayers. Why am I being asked to pay more in taxes so business owners get to pocket more money?

Rachel

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:19 a.m.

News Flash: it never trickles down!
So instead.....have an 8% flat tax on all businesses. Then offer tax breaks (in the form of a credit) to businesses that ACTUALLY generate employment. This enables an incentive to hire more workers, instead of just giving top CEO's a larger paycheck.

Townie

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 1:14 a.m.

The 'tax cuts create jobs' myth lives on like a zombie.
And, of course, there is NO mechanism in this bill to validate the effectiveness of the $1.8 billion gift to businesses.
That's by design - what Republican wants to admit it's a myth?
Where were all the jobs from the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and businesses? In the pockets of the wealthy and corporation CEOs that's where. They love this welfare and want more and more of it. And they'll pretend to create jobs. And that's what we'll get: pretend jobs, not real ones.

Mike K

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.

You are probably not going to believe this, BUT if you count IRS tax receipt for the 8 years under Bush vs. the 8 years under Clinton, Bush wins.
Go have a look yourself.
<a href="http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/08/16/the_hidden_truth_about_the_bush_tax_increases_98625.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/08/16/the_hidden_truth_about_the_bush_tax_increases_98625.html</a>

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.

So, if tax cuts don't create/increase jobs, then it's safe to conclude that increase in taxes creates/increase jobs?
It's gotta be one or the other? So which one is it Townie?

braggslaw

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:43 p.m.

Mission accomplished.
Time to move on

RayA2

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 10:40 a.m.

Mission accomplished when Slick is recalled.

John Q

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:29 a.m.

Great job raising taxes on most Michigan residents to finance a tax cut for business owners. Good to know what conservatives think is their mission.

Roger Roth

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:42 p.m.

@javajolt We need to change the rhetoric. Not jobs. There are tons of &quot;job&quot; in MI. You either need to drastically cut the cost of living so that people who hold &quot;jobs&quot; can make a living or pay them more so they can.
The mantra has to be &quot;jobs with a living wage.&quot;
What do we want here and in this country? A bunch of employed people making minimum wage?&quot; The government calls those &quot;jobs.&quot; You try to live on their wage!
Next thing you know, the legislature with pass a bill making sure that ever dime Lansing takes in withholding from minimum wage earners will remain in Lansing to offset what they no longer get from large corps. Don't you see, it's all a big Reaganesque scam!?

alan

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.

@Mike K-
Cost of business is not the primary factor. An educated workforce brings industries that pay real wages. Delaware, the most corporate friendly state, has a corporate income tax rate of 8.7% and they don't have trouble attracting large businesses.

Mike K

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:08 a.m.

I have to disagree. The cost of business includes the cost of making something; not just incorporating. Educated people like myself left my home state to seek work here in Michigan. Jobs bring educated individuals; it really doesn't work visa versa as you suggest. Educated people are portable. Strike that, all people are portable in our Union.
We have a great workforce here in Michigan. Full of highly skilled trades people with&quot; know how&quot;. We have a solid manufacturing infrastructure. What has that brought us? The short answer is empty industrial parks. Go look for yourself. Every empty building is a tax opportunity LOST.

alan

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:14 p.m.

@javajolt,
Don't buy into the 'bad for mom and pops'. The threshold for the MBT was $350,000, most small businesses never paid it. This won't change anything for the small businesses, it will only affect larger businesses.

alan

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:13 a.m.

@sbbuilder-
As i said, it was a bad tax and needed to be changed. I only take exception to the exaggerated sound bites (from both sides). The MBT wasn't putting mom and pop out of business and doing away with it isn't going to save mom and pop so they can create jobs. Rick Snyder was on TV tonight claiming victory for our friends and neighbors who won't struggle anymore and will have money to hire employees. hogwash.

sbbuilder

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:07 a.m.

Alan
Not so.
I've a 'small business'. All I have to do is a couple large re-mods or additions, and I'm easily into the taxable bracket. Why should I be taxed for building an addition for someone else? Then, I'm taxed on my income from building said addition. That is nuts.

alan

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:35 a.m.

Yes, gross receipts. And above $350k the tax was graduated. So most small business people paid no tax (or very little).

javajolt1

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:04 a.m.

That's $350',000 in GROSS receipts. Not the take home pay of the &quot;boss man&quot; its Before taxes, wages, expenses, etc. That puts small business in jeopardy and costs jobs.

alan

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:12 p.m.

Yes, the MBT was an unfair double tax. But at 6% Michigan will still have one of the lowest corporate income taxes in the country. Was a graduated tax considered? It's not uncommon. Mostly, I would like to know why financial institutions pay no state income tax. This is touted as fixing a budget. How does that happen without revenue?

trespass

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:53 p.m.

The education cuts are not just about tuition increases. They are also about lost opportunities for Michigan students to get a UM education.
Provost Phil Hanlon told the faculty that he would compensate, in part, for the decrease state support by increasing the enrollment of out of state students from 35% to 39%. That is about 1,000 Michigan students who will no longer have an opportunity for a UM education and it is unlikely that Michigan taxpayers will ever get those student slots back.

alan

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:25 p.m.

Maybe sadder is that those students, the brightest we have, may be lost to another state forever.

Mr. Ed

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:42 p.m.

Pension tax is unconstitutional under the Michigan Constitution. Court battle next but NOT before the recall effort. We need change but we don't need to put that change on the backs of the poor and elderly.

lynel

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.

jj1 wrong

javajolt1

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:58 p.m.

Perhaps. But the fact is Michigan is just about the only state that does not tax pensions.

15crown00

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:24 p.m.

i can just tell we're on our way to a better life.that's if we're poor.let's have real welfare reform so the people who constantly have their hands out but don't want to contribute anything except moe drugs and more babies can collect even more.SEEMS FAIR TO ME.

Mike K

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:01 p.m.

I haven't changed my mind in 10 hours....................
The first order of business is to reduce the cost of doing business in Michigan. This State was once a jobs destiny, and I am an example relocating here in 1992. Commerce has slowly left our state resulting in a decreased tax base. One can argue about why business's have left - unions, taxes, lousy weather, globalization...., but at the end of the day it really boils down to the cost of doing business. I can show you practically empty industrial parks - ever see those yellow and black &quot;Signature Associate&quot; for sale signs?? All of those locations once generated taxes for local, state and federal governments.
The reduction in the tax base naturally leads to the reduction of goods and services provided by our government. The left complain that Snyder is screwing this, that and the other thing, and nothing could be further than the truth. The right calls for smaller government, and although generally, smaller seems better, that is not what is happening here. What we have is a simple adjustment of expenses to revenues while trying to rebuild robust commerce in our State.
Snyder's approach makes good sense to me. As for the future, there isn't one until the plan does indeed increase commerce in Michigan. Candidly, I don't think 4 years is enough to rebuild Michigan. The people will grow uneasy and likely vote him out; the plan will be scrapped for a new one, and we will start over........... again.

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.

@leaguebus,
and 556 CEO's ranked Michigan's Business Climate the 5th worst in the nation! Now, who would I rather believe, CEO's of companies that create jobs or some foundation based out Washington DC?

DonBee

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:19 a.m.

John B.
SIx years? Me thinks you need to check again.
I believe the rule is up to 2 Four (4) year terms.

leaguebus

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:09 a.m.

Again I say Michigans business climate is 17th in the country. The reason we lost all the jobs was that our wonderful well run car businesses went bankrupt through bad management and also shipped a ton of Michigan jobs overseas. Now watch who takes credit for the 4000 jobs that GM is going to add, slick Rick. He will say it's his tax cuts that did it. But, we know better. The car companies have been pulling their act together and are back making better cars than the Japanese.

John B.

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:55 a.m.

Governors serve for six years. Recall can happen way sooner than that, however.

Bill

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:01 p.m.

OK Rick, you got your reforms, now PERFORM!
When will the vote on Michigan legislative member retirement be done? Time to get that unnecessary and inappropriate expese off the books as well.

javajolt1

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 9:52 p.m.

The single business tax....and that crazy thing Jennifer Granholm passed in its place made Michigan one of the least competitive states in which to do business.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, everyone needs a job, right? And you can't have jobs without businesses, right? I mean the government could never employ everyone....at least I don't think so.
So those onerous busienss taxes hastened the failure of mom &amp; pops and medium companies that actually employed workers. It put people out of work....making them poor. If you kill the tax, might not more people find jobs?
It's worth a try.
I thought &quot;sustainability&quot; was all the rage. Fixing bad business climate isn't &quot;taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich&quot;. It's money THEY earned in the first place.
it is creating a sustainable jobs producing environment where the &quot;poor&quot; can work again.
...or is this about skipping the job alltogether and having the government take care of us?

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.

@Rachel,
What would you like to see replacing Capitalism?

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.

@leaguebus...&quot;Jennifer's business taxes put Michigan's business climate in the top third of all the states, number 17 to be exact.&quot;
And where in the world did you get this statistic? Under Granholm unemployment went from 7% to over 13%! You call that a good business climate?
Under Granholm, we have more government related jobs than we do in the private sector manufacturing jobs! As of June 2010 there were 644,600 people employed in government jobs compared to only 464,300 manufacturing jobs. You call that a good business climate?

John Q

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.

What point? The guy who designed the Michigan Business Tax is the same guy who now says it's so horrible. So why should I buy into his latest solution?

snapshot

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:14 a.m.

John Q must be a history teacher. get the dates right but miss the point. No wonder history repeats itself so frequently. javajolt1....good point.

leaguebus

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:59 a.m.

Jennifers business taxes put Michigans business climate in the top third of all the states, number 17 to be exact. Java check your facts.

Rachel

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:28 a.m.

Capitalism needs the unemployed. It cuts corners at every cost--and that means lowering wages for workers. The reason this can happen is because if an underemployed worker asks for a higher wage, they're fired, because why raise his/her salary when tons of out-of-work people will do the same job for lower?

John Q

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:26 a.m.

The Michigan Business Tax was designed and promoted by Brian Calley. Make sure to get your facts straight.

Carl Ebach

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 9:50 p.m.

Taking from the poor, disabled and elderly to give to the rich! Why haven't we thought of the sooner? It is estamated that businesses are sitting on over 2 trillion dollars nationally and they want more.

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.

Carl,
Can you please define &quot;the rich&quot;? The term is thrown around by the left because it sounds good, but when it comes down to it, no one can define &quot;rich.&quot;
Please enlighten me, who are &quot;the rich&quot; and what exactly are we giving &quot;them?&quot;

Henry Ruger

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.

Yeah, this is all backwards. We should follow the practices of the City of Detroit!
Uh, well, maybe we should think about that a little bit.

John Q

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:25 a.m.

Back when Granholm was Governor, delaying the income tax decrease and eliminating tax credits and exemptions was called a tax increase by Republicans. When it's done by Republicans, we get chirping crickets from conservatives.

L. C. Burgundy

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:27 p.m.

What poor people exactly had their taxes increased with this budget? (Keeping in mind the pension exemption was retained for senior citizens and a portion of Michigan EIC was also retained.)

Mike K

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:03 p.m.

Carl - companies are hiring. I've had two solicitations in the last month. Things are picking up.

RayA2

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.

I can see why someone in the Forbes 400 would believe that this is good for themselves but I can not see how anyone could believe that this is good for the state. Among other things, We have t o cut spending on education, past the bare bone, to pay for this. How can anyone argue that cutting spending oin education is good for this state? I think that Slick and his gang of teapublican yes men in Lansing have conned far too many people. They are no better than thieves.

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.

@RayA2, where is the proof that we are cutting education &quot;past the bare bone?&quot; Apparently you have haven't paid attention, education isn't being cut to pay for the &quot;tax breaks.&quot; K-12 is now being funded at the 2006 level and the money is being diverted to the Universities and Community colleges to fill the $1.2 billion red ink in the general fund that pays for education.
Instead of drinking the kool-aid, you really need to get your facts straight.

Heardoc

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.

We just need to reign in the unions --MEA in this case-- and things will start to get better. There will be more money for supplies for the children as we curtail union greeed, there will be more accountability on the teachers for performance and therefore better educated children. Liberalism fails every time it is employed. Teddy was a very poor president.

RayA2

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 10:32 a.m.

L.C. at a paltry 2% inflation rate, the budget should have grown by 226% since 1970. There have been many years over 2% inflation during that time but few below the actual growth rate should have been much higher than 228%.
If you had children in the school system over the last 20 years, you would know all too well how much cost cutting the taxpayers have forced because they refuse to acknowledge that costs go up natrually.

snapshot

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:21 a.m.

RayA2, it isn't &quot;an attack on education&quot; it's an attack on irresponsible &quot;educators and administrators&quot; who use taxpayer dollars in an unwise manner. There are incentives if educators improve their pecuniary skills. 85% of budget dollars go to comp plans...that's wrong. Banking, with their bonuses, averages 45% of revenue to compensation. So you complain about their bonuses and support education in which employees are sucking the well dry.

Rachel

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:32 a.m.

@ L.C. Burgundy
Since 1970 the requirements in schools have also gone up. From special education needs, to AP courses and more.
Too much is cut from the younger generation, all to give the rich another million.

Mike K

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:09 p.m.

I know all too well that education is a tough subject as I have two kids in AAPS, and I'm donating things all the time. In fact, I'm going to donate a case of dry erase markers as the ones I tried to use the other day were all out. Not good.
Education as it relates to this state is a tricky subject. People are free to live where they want, and educated people will go to wherever the jobs are -- just as I did when I relocated to Ann Arbor from PA nearly 20 years ago.
Education in the context you are talking about might be a national discussion. That's my opinion anyway.

L. C. Burgundy

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.

Per-pupil K-12 spending in the US has increased about 200% (after adjustment for inflation) since 1970. We are not even remotely close to &quot;past the bare bone&quot; cuts.

David Briegel

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 9:23 p.m.

Prosperity is right around the corner!
The Rickster will now prove that trickle down works.
Are you holding your breath?

maallen

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.

Apparently some were blown away by Granholm's policies-Briegel. And some weren't and now giving Snyder a chance.

Heardoc

Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.

Well-I see you have started to realize the fallasy of the left -- glad to have you on the american side......

Cash

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:15 p.m.

I'm still holding my breath from Reagan's trickle. But when I look up for the first trickle, I get bird droppings instead...imagine that.

L. C. Burgundy

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.

Yes, a vastly simplified, largely loophole free business tax structure will certainly make Michigan a more attractive state to start and do business in. Thanks for asking.

L. C. Burgundy

Thu, May 12, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.

Finally, change to the stagnant quo! No more handouts for Hollywood, closed tax loopholes, vastly simplified business tax code with tax breaks (i.e. letting people keep their money) to small business.
Also, props to Sen. Warren for acknowledging that this budget is the first in a long time that doesn't rely on gimmicks to make Michigan work.